Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Matthew Arnold - and will confine himself to expressing himself as his master does.

In this volume the editor offers ten masters of style, each an acknowledged artist in his way, each, as a rule, utterly different from every other. Many of these writers commanded more than one style; but we see each only in that style in which he was supreme, the style which was especially characteristic of him. To the general reader these ten different types will be exceedingly useful as standards for comparison, and will make his criticism and judgment of any style in future more definite and assured; for not only ought we to enjoy works of art intuitively and instinctively, but critically. It is only by the introduction of the critical standard that we can hope to minimize merely personal preference and make possible the quick recognition of any worthy work of literary art that may come along in current literature.

For the student of literary style who wishes himself to write, these ten types will represent ten different ways in which any particular thought may possibly be expressed. Without question, Flaubert was right in saying that there is one way better than all others for expressing any given conception. Each class of ideas has its best literary form, and if we read these ten groups of essays through, we shall see at once that each type is so successful, so truly masterful, because it is the one type best suited to the particular class of ideas with which the writer deals. If

one is going to write only of one particular class of ideas, one will need only one type of style; but as no other writer will be precisely like Addison or Ruskin or Matthew Arnold, and may have ideas that would have delighted Bacon or Carlyle or De Quincey, and may even have ideas representing all ten of our typical writers which he will wish to express in ten consecutive sentences, or even in ten consecutive phrases, or ten consecutive words, so he will need all ten styles to express those ten ideas in the only perfect way.

But suppose one fancies that one's ideas are most appropriately expressed in the style of De Quincey's impassioned prose or in Macaulay's rhetoric, and so confines his study to those two masters; what will be the fatal result? Why, he will elongate his mind in one direction until he becomes a monstrosity, and his style will be a mere literary curiosity. Nothing is more dangerous than the imitation of one writer, nothing more safe than the imitation of many.

We have spoken of those who wish to read with critical intelligence, and those who wish to write with artistic skill, as if they were separate and distinct classes. In a small degree they are; but for the most part they are one and the same. Every intelligent person ought to read literature with a well-developed critical taste: nearly every one will admit that; but many will say that only the few who are to become professional writers will wish to spend any time in acquiring personal

and actual skill. This is an error, however; every person who will have any desire to read with critical intelligence will have occasion to employ artistic expression in two common ways, namely, in conversation and in letter-writing. In our historical review we have noticed how several of the essay styles originated in conversation and in letter-writing. Conversely, the masterly essays that resulted from these sources will be the best models for successful conversation and successful letter-writing, and therefore should be studied imitatively as well as critically. Nay, more, the critical perception works most quickly and certainly when the imitative faculty is called into activity. In other words, the quickest and surest way to master Lamb's style critically is to try to write like Lamb yourself, and to keep at your imitative efforts till you acquire some sort of skill.

In conclusion, I may say that there is nothing magical about the choice of ten types here presented. Possibly ten other types equally good might have been found, at least if oratory and fiction could have been laid under contribution. In oratory and fiction, however, we come upon argumentative and dramatic structure, which is quite a different thing from style, and might conceivably interfere seriously with the study of it. The essay, like conversation and letters, has no structure. It is, as has previously been said, a pure representative of style as artistic literary

texture, and so for the ordinary student the essay furnishes the simplest and most natural models of style.

Nor is there anything magical in the historical system and analytic arrangement here offered merely for their practical utility to the student. Every great writer is a type in himself. His style is sui generis, and his roots run out in a thousand directions. But in studying an author, we shall gain most for ourselves by limiting our examination to one point of view; and our study of different types of style must have a sharp limit. The chief thing is that the types we select should be as different as possible. When we have gotten clearly no more than three different views of the possibilities of prose style, we are pretty well prepared to go on and differentiate thereafter for ourselves.

III

THE POSSIBILITIES OF PROSE

IF I should say that I believe that in the next century prose will supersede verse in all forms of creative writing except songs that may be set to music, or purely lyrical poetry, some might consider me a wild prophet. More unprejudiced observers would probably agree with me. Not a few critics have intimated that Wordsworth would have done better to have chosen the prose

form for most of his compositions. Though if Browning had written prose it would possibly have been what might be dubbed "Meredithian," probably few will not admit that George Meredith was wise in devoting himself as largely as he did to the prose form of composition. I have always thought that if Byron had written his descriptive poems in prose they would be more widely read to-day than they are. It is also interesting to note that Byron has been especially popular on the continent of Europe, where, presumably, his work is best known in prose translations similar to our prose translations of the poetry of the Bible. We have one prose writer, namely, Ruskin, who by the admission of all his critics has very distinctly the characteristics of a poet. Shelley or Keats was not more passionate and unrestrained in enthusiasm than Ruskin. Yet Ruskin wrote prose. To be sure, Mr. W. C. Brownell tells us Ruskin is a sorry case, that his style lacks form and his matter lacks substance; that he was entirely out of his sphere in writing art criticisms; and that in the days when nothing but literary asbestos survives the fires of Time, there will be exceedingly little of Ruskin remaining. Mr. Brownell implies that Ruskin's mistake was in not writing in verse, a literary form that might have saved him by imposing on him some restraint. He points out lack of restraint as the vital defect of all so-called " prose poetry." Prose, he says, ought to be sane, and he seems to think that it is

[ocr errors]
« ZurückWeiter »